1. Title, director and release year?
The Insider, Michael Mann, 1999
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
A big tobacco company is knowingly putting a harmful product onto the market and causing health problems to their customers
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some big companies have so much money that they can spend a lot to win every trail against them so they don’t have to abide by the rules. Corporations have heavy influence on the FBI and other government organizations. Unsafe chemicals are being used in products. Individuals are being influenced by money rather than doing their job. News stations not being able to tell the truth because of influence or threat by other corporations.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I liked the scene of Russel Crowe saying how the CEO of Johnson and Johnson taking all Tylenol products off the shelves because it might be poisoned. He did this because it was his job to protect the consumer from potentially harmful products and so he did it even though his company probably lost a lot of money. This foreshadows how the tobacco companies work. The scene of the reporters talking of how big tobacco companies can spend so much money to cover themselves when they are doing illegal things shows just how much power these companies have. The scenes showing the intruder in the background and the death threats show just how serious this situation can be just to be able to tell the truth about something illegal. I liked the scene showing that Russel Crowe would go to jail is he testified. This does not seem to be just at all. If anything it should be illegal not to testify in his situation.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The scene of Russel Crowe walking through the airport with his security and then getting served with papers was confusing to me. Afterward he sees what these papers are but it was confusing that these were the same papers.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I want to look up other cases where the tobacco industry was sued and lost the trial. I would also like to know other cases where there were whistleblowers from the tobacco industry. I would also like to look at other times the news industry was influenced by corporations and whether they were ever sued by corporations.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is understandable for most everyone and being a motion picture instead of a documentary, it gains more viewers and is followed more. People will hopefully realize that the news is not always about the truth and that they should not always trust that the news is reporting the whole truth.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film suggests that law should change so that corporations do not have as much influence on employees and news corporations.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film could have gone into how tobacco companies manufacture their cigarettes and what environmental impact that process has.
1. Title, director and release year?
The Insider, Michael Mann, 1999
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
A big tobacco company is knowingly putting a harmful product onto the market and causing health problems to their customers
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some big companies have so much money that they can spend a lot to win every trail against them so they don’t have to abide by the rules. Corporations have heavy influence on the FBI and other government organizations. Unsafe chemicals are being used in products. Individuals are being influenced by money rather than doing their job. News stations not being able to tell the truth because of influence or threat by other corporations.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I liked the scene of Russel Crowe saying how the CEO of Johnson and Johnson taking all Tylenol products off the shelves because it might be poisoned. He did this because it was his job to protect the consumer from potentially harmful products and so he did it even though his company probably lost a lot of money. This foreshadows how the tobacco companies work. The scene of the reporters talking of how big tobacco companies can spend so much money to cover themselves when they are doing illegal things shows just how much power these companies have. The scenes showing the intruder in the background and the death threats show just how serious this situation can be just to be able to tell the truth about something illegal. I liked the scene showing that Russel Crowe would go to jail is he testified. This does not seem to be just at all. If anything it should be illegal not to testify in his situation.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The scene of Russel Crowe walking through the airport with his security and then getting served with papers was confusing to me. Afterward he sees what these papers are but it was confusing that these were the same papers.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I want to look up other cases where the tobacco industry was sued and lost the trial. I would also like to know other cases where there were whistleblowers from the tobacco industry. I would also like to look at other times the news industry was influenced by corporations and whether they were ever sued by corporations.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is understandable for most everyone and being a motion picture instead of a documentary, it gains more viewers and is followed more. People will hopefully realize that the news is not always about the truth and that they should not always trust that the news is reporting the whole truth.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film suggests that law should change so that corporations do not have as much influence on employees and news corporations.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film could have gone into how tobacco companies manufacture their cigarettes and what environmental impact that process has.